Kerala Should Realise That There Is A Constitutional Value Of Cooperative Federalism: Tamil Nadu Tells Supreme Court In Mullaperiyar Dam Case

The Supreme Court has referred multiple pending cases between Kerala and Tamil Nadu over the Mullaperiyar Dam to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for consolidation, aiming to have them adjudicated by a single bench.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh noted that several issues in the dispute, such as the cutting of trees, permitting boats in the lake, and supervision of repair work, seemed trivial for judicial intervention.

"Some of the issues are like school children fighting, fight for having two boats in the lakes… we are wondering if these really require judicial adjudication?" Justice Kant remarked.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for Tamil Nadu, contended, "Look at the sorry state of affairs; for the last 10 years we are attempting to execute a decree." He submitted that something is required to be done urgently.

The Court then asked Naphade to give details of all the cases on the issue of dam safety. It further highlighted that the problem is there are overlapping reliefs. "In one of the writ petitions, a hype is created that if you allow Tamil Nadu to do this, this, people in Kerala will....," Justice Kant said.

Representing Kerala, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta argued that one State has taken a part of another State and is not even concerned of the safety of the persons.

To this, Justice Kant said, "That is a closed issue, and that is the reason why we want this matter to be heard by a three-judge bench."

Naphade submitted that the problem is there is a plethora of matters, and the issues involved are where there is a narrow compass. He argued that Kerala had been obstructing matters related to the dam for over 25 years, alleging that the State’s ultimate objective was to have the dam demolished. "The whole attempt of Kerala, in all 25 years of litigation, has been to drive to a situation where the existing dam will be demolished and that is why for everything we say there is an obstruction Two boats, one boat, my Lords! This cannot go on forever," Naphade argued.

To this, Justice Kant said, "Something which has happened for 25 years, we don't have an answer to that. We will try to solve the problem that we are facing today....for all the xyz prayers that you have sought, we will direct the supervisory committee to immediately convene a meeting...".

Naphade further stated that every time Tamil Nadu gained an advantage, new petitions were filed to stall progress. Naphade also argued that Kerala was not adhering to the Supervisory Committee’s decisions, despite findings that the dam was structurally safe.

Gupta countered that under the new Dam Safety Act, a safety review must be conducted every five years, a requirement that Tamil Nadu was allegedly evading.

In its interim order, the Court directed the newly constituted Supervisory Committee, along with its Chairman, to consider Tamil Nadu’s requests and work towards a resolution. In case of a dispute, the Committee must submit a report to the Court to facilitate adjudication of unresolved issues.

The Chairman of the Supervisory Committee has been directed to convene a meeting of officers from both states within one week, with necessary action to follow within two weeks.

After the dictation of the order, Naphade submitted, "All that I wish for is that the State of Kerala realised that there is a constitutional value of cooperative federalism."

Cause Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala [ORGNL.SUIT No. 3/2006; Diary No. 8520/2006]